Order Gastornithiformes Stejneger, 1885
Family Gastornithidae Fürbringer, 1888
Genus Gastornis Hébert, 1855
Gastornis laurenti Mourer-Chauviré and Bourdon, 2020.
Referred material: see Appendix A. The reconstructed skeleton
shows the bones that have been discovered in La Borie.
Remarks:
Comparison with
Gastornis parisiensis Hébert, 1855. The
humerus BR 12137 from Mont Berru (Fig. 5(H)) has been described
and illustrated by Martin (1992: fig. 3A, B). It is slightly larger
(147 mm in length) than those of
G. laurenti (139.6 and
139.0 mm in length). The proximal part of the humerus is proximally shorter and dorsoventrally wider than in G. laurenti. On the cranial face, the crista deltopectoralis is obliquely oriented in the ventral direction. It protrudes above the surface of the shaft and does not end in a tubercle. On the caudal face, the fossa pneumotricipitalis is deeper than in G. laurenti, and the caput humeri forms a marked protuberance above this fossa. Small foramina are located below the caput humeri. The distal part is ventrally longer than in
G. laurenti. The articular part is badly preserved but it seems that there was only one condyle, the triangular condylus dorsalis, as in
G. laurenti.
A right femur from Cernay has been described by Lemoine
(1878). The extremities of this femur are very wide compared to
the shaft. The caput femoris strongly projects craniolaterally and
the fac. art. antitrochanterica is directed obliquely and cranially.
The structure including the crista tibiofibularis+tr. fibularis+lateral
crest of the tr. fibularis strongly projects laterally and distally,
which differs from G. laurenti (Fig. 6(A, B)). In addition, the condylus
lateralis is very thick on the cranial side (narrow in G. laurenti).
On the caudal side, the condylus medialis is badly preserved but it
seems strongly developed in proximodistal direction. A distal part
of right femur is known from Mesvin, Belgium (Dollo, 1883). This
femur also shows a very wide distal extremity compared to the
shaft and the crista tibiofibularis+tr. fibularis+incompletely preserved lateral crest of tr. fibularis strongly projects laterally and
distally. The condylus medialis is mediolaterally wide and its proximal outline is rounded. A proximal part of femur and a fragment of shaft are known from Croydon, England (Newton, 1890; Harrison and Walker, 1977). This fragment includes the incompletely preserved caput femoris and crista trochanteris, and the fac. art. antitrochanterica. The preserved part of the shaft is narrow compared to the proximal end. The caput femoris is more prominent medially and the collum femoris is more elongate than in G. laurenti. In the Croydon specimen the crista trochanteris is oriented toward the median axis of the bone, while in G. laurenti the crista follows its craniolateral border. Worthy et al. (2017) describe the condylus lateralis in G. parisiensis: ‘‘trochlea fibularis short and merges with side of condylus lateralis proximal to its distal end”.
This is true for the distal femur from Mesvin (Dollo, 1883), but
not for the femur from Cernay-lès-Reims (Lemoine, 1878: pl. I).
The holotype tibiotarsus of G. parisiensis, from Meudon, was figured by Owen (1856: pl. III, fig. 1a, 1b) and Milne-Edwards (1867-
68: pl. 28, figs. 1-4). These illustrations are slightly different, especially with regard to the distal view. In G. parisiensis the condylus medialis seems less prominent cranially and the pons supratendineus is narrower than in G. laurenti, but this is due to incomplete preservation. In the tibiotarsus from Croydon, on the caudal surface, both condyles are proximodistally elongate and caudally prominent. In the holotype tibiotarsus, the proximal part is not preserved. A proximal part of tibiotarsus n LR BR A4, fromthe Thanetian of Mont Berru, has been reported by Buffetaut (1997). In this specimen, the fac. art. medialis is obliquely oriented inmediodistal direction and the fac. art. lateralis is obliquely oriented in laterodistal direction,whereas in
G. laurenti the fac. art.medialis is oriented proximally and the fac. art. lateralis is oriented caudally. In
G. parisiensis, the sulcus between the articular surfaces (area interarticularis in Baumel and Witmer, 1993) is much wider that in G. laurenti and there is a large tubercle at the caudolateral angle of the fac. art. medialis, approximately in front of the fac. art. lateralis. This large tubercle is absent in G. laurenti,which shows a small tubercle in the craniolateral angle of the fac. art. medialis. Milne-Edwards (1867-68: p. 173- 174, pl. XXIX, figs. 4-5) described a fragment of fibula from Passy. This fragment corresponds to the middle part of the fibula, and the caput fibulae is not preserved. It consists of a flattened, rather thick blade, which is slightly curved craniocaudally. There is no crest on the lateral side, and no elongate fossa on the medial side, which strongly differs from G. laurenti (Fig. 6(F, G)). Two tarsometatarsi of G. parisiensis are known in the material from Mont Berru: a left one, unnumbered, from the Escuillié collection, a cast of which is preserved in the MNHN Paris collection (n L 3092), and a cast of right tarsometatarsus housed in the MNHN Paris (n L 3093). The left one has been described and figured by Angst (2014: fig. 27). These two specimens differ from that of La Borie (Fig. 7(A, B)) in the shape of the shaft: the medial and lateral sides are parallel, therefore the shaft does not show any narrowing (Martin, 1992: fig. 5A-F; Buffetaut and Angst: 2014, fig. 3B). The canalis interosseus distalis is open on the dorsal side in L 3092, but closed in L 3093. The tr. met. IV is elongate and extends beyond the mid-length of the tr. met. III. The tr. met. II does not show any groove. The incisura intertrochlearis medialis is narrower than in
G. laurenti.
A phalanx 2 digit III of G. parisiensis from Mont Berru is very
similar to G. laurenti in size and proportion (Mourer-Chauviré
and Bourdon, 2016: tabl. 6; Table 1).
Comparison with
Gastornis russelli Martin, 1992. This species is
known from a left tarsometatarsus and a tentatively referred
fragment of maxilla, both from Mont Berru. The holotype
tarsometatarsus (MNHN Paris R 3560) is very similar to G.
parisiensis, and only differs from the latter species in the smaller
size and slenderer shaft. Therefore, it differs from G. laurenti in
the same characters (Martin, 1992: fig. 6A-D, 7A). It shows a groove
instead of a closed canalis interosseus distalis. As noted previously,
measurements provided by Martin (1992) for this tarsometatarsus
are inaccurate (Mourer-Chauviré and Bourdon, 2016).
Comparison with
Gastornis sarasini (Schaub, 1929). This species
comes from the locality of Monthelon (Schaub, 1929: figs. 1-4) and
is known from a distal fragment of tarsometatarsus bearing tr. met.
II and III, and a pedal phalanx. The measurements of the tarsometatarsus are close to those of G. laurenti. The canalis interosseus distalis is open on the dorsal side. The tr. met. III has an
expanded distal end. This feature is not visible in
G. laurenti due to
the mediolateral crushing of this trochlea. G. laurenti differs from G.
sarasini in the closed canalis interosseus distalis, the tr. met. II oriented further medially and bearing a longitudinal groove. The fossa met. I is visible i
n G. sarasini, while it is not visible in
G. laurenti due to crushing.
Comparison with
Gastornis giganteus (Cope, 1876). The atlas of
G. laurenti (Fig. 4(A, B)) differs from that of G. giganteus in the elliptical shape of the foramen vertebrale (more rounded in G. giganteus), and in the laterally directed zygapophyses caudales
(dorsally directed in
G. giganteus). In
G. giganteus, Andors (1988:
p. 156) reports the presence ‘‘on the caudal side of the neural arch,
at the very base of each dorsal process, of subtriangular
zygapophyses” (see Matthew and Granger, 1917: pl. XXII, fig. 4c).
These subtriangular zygapophyses are absent in
G. laurenti. The
axis of G. laurenti (Fig. 4(C, D)) differs from that of
G. giganteus in
the following features: zygapophyses caudales more laterally elongate, processus costales less prominent, and, on the ventral surface of the arcus axis, area ligamenti elastici forming a depressed surface, while in
G. giganteus it is slightly raised.
The cervical vertebra (Fig. 4(E-H)) resembles the three anterior
cervical vertebrae of G. giganteus figured by Matthew and Granger
(1917: pl. XXIII, figs. 2-4), but it is proportionally more elongate. In
G. giganteus the cranial zygapophyses and cranial articular facies
are located in cranial position, beyond the fac. art. cranialis. In contrast,
The cervical vertebra (Fig. 4(E-H)) resembles the three anterior
cervical vertebrae of
G. giganteus figured by Matthew and Granger
(1917: pl. XXIII, figs. 2-4), but it is proportionally more elongate. In
G. giganteus the cranial zygapophyses and cranial articular facies
are located in cranial position, beyond the fac. art. cranialis. In contrast, these structures are located in more caudal position in G. laurenti. In
G. giganteus, the processus costales ‘‘are quite vestigial,
represented only by a small knob below the anterior zygapophysis
with a little backwardly directed spine” (Matthew and Granger,
1917: p. 313). In contrast, the coastal processes are well developed
in
G. laurenti.
The caudal vertebra of
G. laurenti (Fig. 4(I, J)) also resembles the
caudal vertebra of
G. giganteus figured by Matthew and Granger
(1917: pl. XXVII, fig. 4a, b). In this vertebra, the processus spinosus
is strongly widened at the tip. The fac. art. cranialis is circular in
shape, whereas it is bean-shaped in
G. laurenti.
The humeri of
G. laurenti (Fig. 5(A-F)) are smaller than the
humerus of the specimen AMNH 6169 from North America (total
length, 165.6 mm; Andors, 1988; Fig. 5(G)). In
G. giganteus the
proximal part of the humerus is less ventrally curved, whereas
the distal part is more so than in
G. laurenti. The tuberculum ventrale is proximally prominent. The caput humeri is obliquely elongate and forms a small protuberance above the wide and shallow fossa pneumotricipitalis. There is a small notch between the tuberculum ventrale and the caput humeri, which corresponds to the incisura capitis. On the cranial face, the oblique crista deltopectoralis slopes ventrally and ends in a tubercle, which is located approximatively in the middle of the shaft. According to Andors (1988: p. 200), this character is not present in all specimens of
G. giganteus. The crista deltopectoralis forms a well-developed ridge in some individuals, especially in AMNH 6169, but only a low
rugosity in some others (Andors, 1988). The distal part of the
humerus is more dorsoventrally elongate than in
G. laurenti. ‘‘The
internal and external condyles are small and poorly defined, and
there is only a faintest trace of a fossa olecrani” (Andors, 1988:
pp. 200-201), but both condyles are still present, whereas the
condylus ventralis is absent in
G. laurenti. The incompleteness of the ulna from La Borie (Fig. 5(I, J)) does not allow meaningful comparisons. In
G. giganteus, the shaft of the radius is straight and its proximal half is roughly circular in cross-section, ‘‘whereas its distal part is ancono-palmarly depressed, trigonal in section and broader owing to the outgrowth of a long and prominent external crest” (Andors, 1988: p. 203). In
G. laurenti (Fig. 5(K, L)) the distal part of the shaft is dorsoventrally compressed and does not show any external crest. In
G. giganteus, the extremities of the femur are much widened compared to the shaft. The collum femoris is elongate and the caput femoris strongly projects medially, but not proximally, unlike in
G. laurenti (Fig. 6(A, B)) and
G. parisiensis. In the lateroproximal angle, the trochanter is very high and robust. In some specimens (Troxell, 1931), it is extended by a short ridge on the cranial surface of the shaft. The crista tibiofibularis+tr. fibularis +lateral crest of tr. fibularis extends further distally than the condylus medialis, but the whole structure is much less laterally oriented than in
G. parisiensis and
G. geiselensis. ‘‘The fac. art.
antitrochanterica slopes posterodistally and its posterior [caudal]
angle forms a thickened labrum which overhangs an excavation
of the shaft” (Andors, 1988: p. 216). In
G. laurenti, the fac. art.
antitrochanterica also protrudes caudally along the median axis
of the bone, but this labrum is much more prominent and lies
above a deeper depression in
G. giganteus. In the latter species,
the condylus medialis is larger than in
G. laurenti. The fossa poplitea is located proximal to the condylus medialis, while in
G. laurenti it extends further distally. In cranial and caudal views, a
deep notch occurs in the distal outline of the sulcus intercondylaris
(Matthew and Granger, 1917: pl. XXXI; Troxell, 1931: fig. 5),
whereas in G. laurenti this notch is much shallower, especially in
cranial view. In the tibiotarsi of
G. giganteus ‘‘the fossae retrocristales [. . .] are separated from one another by an oblique ridge [. . .] which prior to distortion would probably have been anteroposterior in orientation”(Andors, 1988: p. 222). In contrast, there is no separation between the fossae retrocristales in G. laurenti (Fig. 6(E)). In
G giganteus the fac. art. medialis is oriented proximally, as in
G. laurenti. In G. giganteus, the fac. art. lateralis is oriented proximally but it is extended, on the caudal surface, by a bulbous lobe, and there is a rough surface for the insertion of the caput fibulae distal to this lobe. In contrast, in
G. laurenti, the fac. art. lateralis is completely located on the caudal surface (Fig. 6(D, E, J, K)). In
G. giganteus, the area interarticularis is wide and shallow (very narrow in
G. laurenti). A prominent tubercle is present in the centre of the proximal articular surface (absent in G. laurenti, perhaps due to erosion). In G. giganteus, a prominent tubercle is located next to the pons supratendineus and proximal to the condylus lateralis. According to Andors (1988: p. 226), this tubercle corresponds to the attachment of the retinaculum extensorium tibiotarsi. In contrast, in
G. laurenti there is no tubercle and the retinaculum is attached to an oval, flattened, and rough zone (Fig. 6(C)). In G. giganteus, the cranial border of the condylus medialis is sharp (in
G. laurenti the cranial border is rounded). The epicondylus medialis is very prominent (weakly prominent in
G. laurenti). On the caudal surface, the crista trochleae lateralis is lateromedially compressed and much thinner than its medial counterpart (in G. laurenti the crista trochleae lateralis is not compressed). In
G. giganteus, the fibula shows a longitudinal crest on the lateral side and an elongate fossa on the medial side, as in G. laurenti (Fig. 6(F, G)). However, the fossa is shallower in the former species, probably because the bone has not been so strongly compressed. In
G. giganteus, a shallow depression occurs on the lateral side of the caput fibulae, distal to the fac. art. femoralis; this depression does not exist in
G. laurenti.
In the tarsometatarsus of
G. giganteus ‘‘the proximal and distal
extremities are widely expanded with respect to the shaft, which
is narrowly constricted in its middle” (Andors, 1988: p. 235). In
G. laurenti the constriction is less pronounced and is located closer
to the distal extremity (Fig. 7(A, B)). In
G. giganteus, both foramina
vascularia proximalia open into the surface of the fossa infracotylaris dorsalis, instead of opening separately into a narrow and elongate fossa. The canalis interosseus distalis is reduced to a partly closed groove in some specimens, and the foramen vasculare distale is sometimes absent. The tr. met. II is the smallest and the
shortest of the trochleae, while in G. laurenti both tr. met. II and IV
have almost the same size and length. In
G. giganteus ‘‘the longitudinal axis of the middle trochlea is coincident with the medial border of the shaft” and ‘‘the median trochlea projects anteriorly well in front of the plane of the shaft” (Andors, 1988: pp. 241-242), while in
G. laurenti the tr. met. III is coincident with the median axis of the bone and does not project much anteriorly. In
G. giganteus, the axis of the tr. met. III is oriented craniolaterally to caudomedially in plantar view (Shufeldt, 1913: pl. LIII, figs. 9, 12),
whereas it is oriented craniocaudally in
G. laurenti.
The phalanges 1 digit III attributed to G. giganteus show great
morphological differences. Some of them are hourglass-shaped,
with strong narrowing above the tr. art. and condyles projecting
on the medial and lateral surfaces. Some others are stout, with parallel medial and lateral sides, and weakly projecting condyles. Concerning G. giganteus, we base our comparison on the phalanx 1
digit III of the specimen AMNH 6169, the almost complete skeleton
described by Matthew and Granger (1917: pl. 32, fig. 3) under the
name Diatryma steini and synonymised with Gastornis giganteus
(Cope, 1876) by Mlíkovsky´ (2002). Other North American species
of Gastornis have been synonymised with Gastornis giganteus by
Angst (2014). However, we think that their phalanges 1 digit III,
such as those of Gastornis ‘‘Diatryma” regens (Marsh, 1894: fig.
1a-d), or Gastornis ‘‘Diatryma” ajax (Shufeldt, 1913: pl. 52, fig. 4;
pl. 53, fig. 8; pl. 54, fig. 13) do not belong to Gastornis giganteus
(Table 1). The phalanx 1 digit III of G. laurenti is very similar to that
of the specimen AMNH 6169, but has a smaller size. In contrast, the
phalanx of G. regens (Marsh, 1894) differs from that of G. laurenti in
the following characters: longer shaft, cotyla art. with two subequal
parts separated by a more pronounced ridge, distal part
heart-shaped in distal view (flattened in G. laurenti), distal condyles
slightly projecting medially and laterally. The phalanx of
G. laurenti is also very different from that of
G. ajax (Shufeldt, 1913): in this phalanx 1 digit III the dorsal and plantar surfaces are very wide, the shaft does not taper distally, the condyles of the tr. art. do not project externally or plantarly, and the intercondylar groove is very faint.
The phalanges 2 and 3 digit III from La Borie are smaller than
those of G. giganteus AMNH 6169 (Table 1). On average, their
dimensions only reach 84% of those of the North American form.
The proportions of the phalanx 2 are similar in the two species,
but the phalanx 3 is slightly shorter and wider in
G. laurenti.
Comparison with
Gastornis geiselensis (Fischer, 1978). A well
preserved femur is known in the Geiseltal (Fischer, 1978;
Hellmund, 2013). Both extremities are greatly widened compared
to the shaft. The caput femoris strongly projects medially. On the
cranial surface, the crista trochanteris protrudes medially. The
fac. art. antitrochanterica protrudes on the caudal surface. The
crista tibiofibularis+tr. fibularis+lateral crest of the tr. fibularis
strongly protrudes on the caudal and lateral sides. The condylus
medialis is much wider than in G. laurenti, and its proximal outline
is rounded (flat in
G. laurenti). Lastly, the fossa poplitea is proximodistally longer than in
G. laurenti (Fig. 6(A, B)).
Three tibiotarsi are also known in G. geiselensis (Fischer, 1962,
1978). Two right tibiotarsi show cnemial crests that strongly project
proximally, especially the crista cn. cranialis. The sulcus intercnemialis is very wide in one of the tibiotarsi (collection number Dia 22). The crista cn. lateralis curves evenly distally but in this specimen it extends laterally, probably following a break
(Fischer, 1978). It is not possible to see the details of the proximal
articular surface. The tibiotarsi of
G. geiselensis differs from those of
G. laurenti in the following characteristics: cristae cnemiales much
more prominent proximally, presence of deep depressio epicondylaris lateralis (shallow in
G. laurenti), presence of a distinct tubercle proximal to the condylus lateralis (no tubercle in
G. laurenti). The condylus medialis does not extend as far distally as the condylus lateralis. This morphology corresponds to the shape of the proximal part of the tarsometatarsus, in which the cotylae are not at the same level. In G. laurenti, a gap is also present between the distal extremities of the condyles, but it is not as pronounced as in
G. geiselensis
The tarsometatarsi of G. geiselensis are strongly broken and distorted
(Fischer, 1962: pl. V, figs. 9-10; 1978: pl. XI, fig. 7; Hellmund,
2013: fig. 7a, 8a). They are relatively short, with a very wide proximal
extremity, a wide distal extremity, and a narrow mid-shaft.
The cotyla lateralis is situated further distally than the cotyla medialis.
The rounded fossa infracotylaris dorsalis is not prolonged by a
sulcus extensorius. The tr. met. IV is very wide and almost as long
as the tr. met. III. The tr. met. II is much shorter than the tr. met. IV
and is laterally curved at its base.
G. geiselensis strongly differs from
G. laurenti in these characteristics. In addition, in
G. geiselensis the
canalis interosseus distalis is open on the dorsal side, whereas it is
closed in
G. laurenti. A reconstruction of a Geiseltal tarsometatarsus
was proposed by Hellmund (2013: fig. 7c, 8c).
A phalanx 1 digit III of
G. geiselensis is reported but not figured
(Fischer, 1978); its measurements seem to correspond to an
hourglass-shaped phalanx because the minimal width of the distal
shaft is much inferior to the proximal width (Table 1). In this character, the phalanx 1 digit III of
G. geiselensis probably looks similar to that of
G. laurenti (Fig. 7(C, D)).
Comparison with
Gastornis sp. from Louvois. A fragment of
proximal part of humerus has been reported from the late Paleocene locality of Louvois (Mourer-Chauviré and Bourdon, 2016:
fig. 2f). This fragment corresponds to a much larger humerus than
that of
G. laurenti, but this difference is not a distinctive character
since the
Gastornis sp. from Louvois shows an important sexual size
dimorphism (Mourer-Chauviré and Bourdon, 2016). As in
G.
parisiensis, small foramina are located beneath the distal edge of
the caput humeri, whereas these foramina are absent in G. laurenti.
The phalanx 2 digit III of the large form from Louvois is shorter
than that of
G. laurenti (Table 1), the proximal part is wider, the
shaft is more constricted in the middle and the condyles of the
tr. art. are very faint on the plantar surface (Mourer-Chauviré
and Bourdon, 2016: fig. 3m, n). In both phalanges 3 digit III of
the large form from Louvois, the tr. art. shows barely distinct condyles. The lateral fovea lig. coll. is deep, circular in shape, and
extends far proximally onto the lateral surface, whereas the medial
fovea lig. coll. is shallow (Mourer-Chauviré and Bourdon, 2016: fig.
3o-r). In contrast, in the La Borie specimen the articular condyles
are distinct on the plantar surface, and both foveae lig. coll. are
shallow.
Comparison with
Gastornis (Hou, 1980). A distal extremity of
tibiotarsus has been described in the early Eocene of China, and
is now attributed to the genus
Gastornis (Buffetaut, 2013).
G.
xichuanensis differs from
G. laurenti in its very large size. In the former species, the depth of the condylus medialis is only slightly
greater than the distal width, which gives to the distal articular
surface an almost square shape. In
G. xichuanensis, the condylus
medialis projects only slightly cranially, while it is more prominent
in G. laurenti and would be even more so if the bone had not been
crushed on its medial side. Lastly, in
G. xichuanensis the incisura
intercondylaris is deep and V-shaped, whereas in
G. laurenti it is
wide, shallower and with a flat bottom.
Estimation of body mass and life reconstruction of
Gastornis laurenti (Fig. 8). The body mass of
G. laurenti can be estimated based on the least shaft circumference of the femur MHNT.
PAL.2018.20.2, and tibiotarsus MHNT.PAL.2018.20.3, by using the
regression equations of Campbell and Marcus (1992) for the AL
group. The results are 178 kg based on the femur and 190 kg based on the tibiotarsus. Angst (2014: table 2) indicates a mean mass of 145 kg based on the femora (n = 2), and 149 kg based on the tibiotarsi (n = 6), for
G. parisiensis. However, the sample used by this author probably includes some tibiotarsi of
G. laurenti.
G. giganteus is heavier, with a mean body mass estimate of 210 kg based on the femora (n = 3), and 180 kg based on the tibiotarsi (n = 3). Concerning
G. geiselensis, the width of the femur at mid-height is 54 mm (Fischer, 1962). It seems that this width corresponds to the least shaft width, therefore the body mass can be estimated to 205 kg
Fred
Fig. 1. Reconstructed skeleton of Gastornis laurenti Mourer-Chauviré and Bourdon, 2020. The right femur and tibiotarsus are thin because they have been strongly compressed craniocaudally
Fig. 2 Gastornis laurenti Mourer-Chauviré and Bourdon, 2020 from La Borie (early Eocene; Southern France). A, B. Atlas MHNT.PAL.2018.20.8 in cranial (A) and caudal (B) views. C, D. Axis MHNT.PAL.2018.20.9 in dorsal (C) and ventral (D) views. E-H. Vertebra cervicalis MHNT.PAL.2018.20.10 in dorsal (E), ventral (F), cranial (G) and caudal (H) views. I, J. Vertebra caudalis MHNT.2018.20.12 in cranial (I) and caudal (J) views. K. Fragment of pygostylus MHNT.2018.20.13 in cranial view. Abbreviations: ale, area ligamenti elastici; faat, facies articularis atlantica; faax, facies articularis axialis; faca, facies articularis caudalis; facr, facies articularis cranialis; fc, fossa condyloidea; fv, foramen vertebrale; if, incisura fossae; lp, lamina pygostyli; ps, processus spinosus. Scale bars: 2 cm.
Fig. 3. A-F, I-L. Gastornis laurenti Mourer-Chauviré and Bourdon, 2020 from La Borie (early Eocene; Southern France). A-E: right humerus MHNT.PAL.2018.20.6 in caudal (A), dorsal (B), cranial (C), proximal (D) and distal (E) views; F: left humerus HNT.PAL.2018.20.7 in caudal view; I, J: right ulna NT.PAL.2018.17.3 in ventral (I) and dorsal (J) views; K, L: shaft and distal part of right radius MHNT.PAL.2018.17.4 in dorsal (K) and ventral (L) views. G. Gastornis giganteus (Cope, 1876), right humerus AMNH 6169 in
cranial view. H. Gastornis parisiensis Hébert, 1855, right humerus BR 12137 in cranial view. Abbreviations: cd, crista deltopectoralis; cod, condylus dorsalis; fp, fossa
pneumotricipitalis; tav, tuberculum aponeurosis ventralis; tv, tuberculum ventrale. Scale bar: 3 cm.
Fig. 85 Life reconstruction of
Gastornis laurenti (author: Guy Le Roux). The bird is eating some fruits of Anacardiaceae, remains of which have been identified in the paleoflora of La Borie (Laurent et al., 2010).
